Talk:Atlas Network/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

January 2025

@Doctorstrange617, @Iljhgtn, and @Llll5032, I respectfully disagree with some of the reverts of my edits, as well as with the removal of academic sources. The addition of "neoliberal" is not controversial when applied in the context of Hayek, Reagan, and Thatcher, I certainly did not mean to add it as a pejorative but merely due to a significant number of sources, including Mitchell 2005. There already were a significant number of sources that used the "neoliberal" label and discussed Atlas within the context of neoliberalism but for some reason it was not spelled out.

So where is the issue with this?

Atlas Network, formerly known as Atlas Economic Research Foundation, is a neoliberal non-governmental 501(c)(3) organization based in the United States that provides training, networking, and grants for libertarian, free-market, and conservative groups around the world.

Perhaps this can be rewarded (and I am open to suggestions, for example moving "neoliberal" a bit later) but we cannot merely include the think-tank self-descriptions (free-market, libertarian, classical liberal, etc.) and in fact we must give more weight to secondary (rather than primary ones) sources. We simply cannot erase any mention of "neoliberal" from the text when we have reliable sources using it, and we cannot dismiss it as a mere pejorative or original research if it is supported by reliable sources. Attribute it if we must, but not just erase it.

Atlas Network was founded in 1981 by Antony Fisher, a British entrepreneur who wanted to create a means to connect various neoliberal think tanks via a global network.

This is sourced to Mitchell 2005 and other sources that are apparently perfectly fine for everything else but not for placing this think tank within the context of neoliberalism.

So why was that removed and whitewashed? And why was this removed as well?

During its history, Atlas Network has attracted criticism for its lack of transparency, links to tobacco and oil industries, and its political ties to certain radical right organizations. Atlas Network responded that it no longer receive funding from oil and gas companies, and said that it generally refrains from taking any institutional positions on public policy subjects that its partners support.

We have plenty of sections about all this, so it violates WP:NPOV in not discussing something that is clearly prominent in the body and reliable sources. I also added Atlas's response/POV. Of course, any further suggestion is welcome, but I fail to see where is the issue. I thought it was pretty neutral.

Or why was this whitewashed? All sources used place it within the context of neoliberalism, and it is attributed.

Neoliberal figures, such as Hayek, Margaret Thatcher, and Milton Friedman, all friends of Fisher, formally endorsed the organization. Atlas Network connected various neoliberal think tanks via a global network, and was part of a transatlantic "neoliberal international" including academics, journalists, and business people who supported and promoted the ideology. In the words of Richard Meagher, it was founded as a "think tank that creates think tanks". Discussing the rise of neoliberalism, Timothy Mitchell writes that by 1979, when Thatcher won the election, "what had begun as a fringe right-wing intellectual current" had just become "the most powerful political orthodoxy in the West". By 1981, when Atlas Network was founded, Mitchell writes that "the neoliberal movement was now trying to extend its network to other parts of the world". Also in 1981, when Hayek's close collaborator Fisher established the Atlas Foundation of Economic Research, its goal according to Mitchell was "to coordinate activities and corporate funding among the network of European and American think tanks, and to extend it by developing and financing a group of neoliberal organizations outside Western Europe and the United States".

Again, perhaps this may be shortened but why remove "neoliberal" or the sources support of the use of "neoliberal" as a descriptive and accurate label for this think tank? There are 12 mentions of "neoliberal" in the references but none in the lead or body... So how can all of this be WP:OR as Iljhgtn dismissed here? The original research is citing reliable sources using the label and placing Atlas within the context of neoliberalism and make no mention of it (neoliberalism) but cherry picking the rest and amazingly not using the "neoliberal" label even once. In descriptive terms, neoliberalism is a revival of classical liberalism, and key figures have been Hayek, Fischer, and others, with Thatcher and Reagan putting their policies in practice. The fact "actually existing neoliberalism" was not as advertised does not change this, or was it not "real neoliberalism" and thus think tanks that promoted neoliberalism are retroactively no longer "neoliberal" because "real neoliberalism" was not as pure as in theory like communism? That is why many neoliberal organizations call themselves "free market" or "libertarian". The Adam Smith Institute is the more honest one.

And finally about this, the lead should be without sources since everything is sourced, and does not actually say anything controversial to justify it; it includes all labels used to describe it or relevant to it (neoliberal, conservative, libertarian, free market, etc.), we then provide a list of relevant affiliated think tank (not controversial), and finally there is a summary of the controversies (the fact that it is controversial is not controversial) that are prominent and referenced in the body. Pretty simple, no? Apparently the only controversy is the use of the "neoliberal" label; however, it is used in the source in a descriptive manner and is in line in reliable source considering neoliberalism as something real, particularly when applied to figures who were literally calling for neoliberalism (Mont Pelerin Society) or are not controversial to be seen as part of the movement (e.g. Thatcher). My understanding is that the "neoliberal" label is more controversial when also applied to center-left Third Way government or to Nixon/Carter but not to Thatcher and Reagan or like-minded think tanks. So unless I am missing something, while "neoliberalism" has been used as a pejorative, that does not mean it cannot be used at all when supported; from reading the sources, I see nothing controversial about it. To reiterate, Wikipedia is based around secondary sources. Whether Atlas Network like it or not, a significant number of reliable secondary sources, including academic ones, described them as "neoliberal" in a fair, descriptive manner. Davide King (talk) 20:00, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, Davide King. I favor citations in the lead section because "Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations" (per WP:LEADCITE). There have been some disagreements about content in the lead section, and citations are the simplest way to highlight the best independent sources and settle such disagreements. I agree with your other points about following what those sources say, which is crucial for neutrality. Llll5032 (talk) 23:02, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

The points raised by @Davide King seem reasonable to me. While the term "neoliberal" was perhaps used a bit too liberally in the text, completely removing it doesn't accurately reflect the body of sources. Tytire (talk) 21:44, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, that seems like a fair assessment, @Tytire. Given the reliable sourcing related to the term "neoliberal," it may be worth a mention in the body of the article, perhaps as it pertains to the historical figures like Margaret Thatcher. Although I don't see any need to update the summary again, per past discussions, and not sure how the "neoliberalism" description really improves the body either.

Side note: I don't understand why there is such resistance to the headlines in the "History" section reflecting the fact that Atlas Network works with entrepreneurs and entrepreneurship seems to be a key part of their mission. The term "entrepreneurship" isn't even inherently positive; it just is what it is, based on various reliable sources that the group is pro-entrepreneur in different countries. The same goes for combatting authoritarianism: Per Reason, a reliable source, "Atlas Network supports nonprofits around the globe that fight against authoritarianism..."

So why can't that be reflected in a section headline? The group's involvement in Ukraine relates to this point too. And yet, the "History" section remains dominated by ideologically charged material about tobacco, oil, etc. based on very one-sided reporting. This feels quite disproportionate given that even The New Republic (a left-wing source) acknowledged this statement from the group: “Atlas Network has no partnerships with extractive industries such as oil and gas companies, we receive no funding from oil and gas companies and have not received funding from oil and gas companies for nearly 15 years...”

Just for the record! This reporting claims something similar. Context worth noting, that's all. Doctorstrange617 (talk) 22:16, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree with Tytire and Doctorstrange617 that "neoliberal" should be restored. With regard to Doctorstrange617's proposed headings: Although Reason is considered a generally reliable source, its publisher the Reason Foundation and Atlas Network's funding sources overlap, with millions of dollars from the Charles Koch Foundation and the Scaife Foundations. Though common funding should not rule out Reason as a source with attribution, can Reason be considered independent enough as the only generally reliable source for Wikivoice headings in the History section? In my opinion, a more independent WP:GREL or academic RS should be necessary. Llll5032 (talk) 22:49, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

As you mention, WP:REASONMAG is a WP:GREL source, and there is no caveat there except for an opinion piece in which case it can still be used, but with attribution and evaluated for due weight. So I am confused when you say a "more" wP:GREL RS "should be necessary"? Iljhgtn (talk) 15:36, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

That article of Reason seems mostly devoid of substance to me. Can we find a more in-depth independent review of that anti- authoritarianism work? Tytire (talk) 20:51, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Iljhgtn, I was objecting only to citing the Reason article as the best source for a heading. I do not object to its attributed use in text. Llll5032 (talk) 00:12, 29 January 2025 (UTC)